Raise Dead: A nice big bone to the simulationists

[HeinorNY]

If it wasn't someone's destiny to get eaten by a troll, how did it happen?

It was his destiny to be eaten by a troll and then raised from the dead.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

If it wasn't someone's destiny to get eaten by a troll, how did it happen? This is one problem with this approach. Just what is destiny and just how much control does it have over events? It is inconceivable that in a world of multiple, very imperfect, different and rival gods, that destiny could be some kind of divine plan. There's simply no way the gods of good and evil would agree on what should be. So if destiny is not a divine plan, then what is it? Is it a power that transcends even the gods? And if so, then as I asked before, how is it that what is destined is not what always comes to pass? Who or what in the setting determines whether someone is "destined" for another chance?

Falling Icicle I am going to post two of my previous posts, that I think show atleast my view of this:

I have always viewed Destiny as something that is in flux, it is that little thing that is always one-step ahead of you.

Destiny is the only true omnipresence in D&D. It is something that sees everything you will do, may do, and when. It sees what your true Destiny is, us as people may believe our Destiny lays in for your example slaying the great evil. But it truly wasn't it could be...

-The journey to do so leads you to impact the lives of those around you, sending them to do great things.

-You discover something in your journey to defeat the great evil that alters the world.

-After the death of the great evil, circumstances change and sets in motion your true destiny.

Those are just a couple examples.

Now that is not to say Destiny cannot be tricked, it is just extremely difficult. Some Gods may be able to do so, some Epic-level characters may be able to do, "once per day when you die..." could be you tricking Destiny into this not being your time-to-die, etc.

Hell, I have always viewed the Star-Pact as being tied to Fate and Destiny, so perhaps you could make a deal with the Fates to alter your Destiny, etc.

The next quote was in relation to the whole Heroic, Paragon, Epic idea of Raise Dead:

That could actually mean, that the Destiny to befowl you is loose and only when you begin to step into that Destiny that Destiny begins to become a presence in your life.

Sorta the idea, that one has the opportunity to step into one's Destiny either knowingly or unknowingly or mis-step and become simply a normal adventurer.

As for who controls Destiny and Fate if not the Gods, then the Fates, or the Stars or a force older then the universe... Any number of things, some Gods may have more knowledge of Destiny and Fate and as such can manipulate it, ie: Raven Queen but they do not have full-control.

 

[Lurker37]

Here's how I interpret the statements from the designers and what I've read in the previews:

The point of this rule is to prevent the DM from having to fudge the rules every time the question arises why <NPC> hasn't been raised from the dead. The goal is to have an in-game reason why only some people can be resurrected.

The mechanism chosen for this is destiny. The souls of those whose destinies are fulfilled move on, beyond the ability of any magic to retrieve.

Every sentient mortal entity in the game world has a destiny. This destiny confers no game advantage while the entity lives. (At least, there is no mention of such in anything I've read). This destiny is either 'fulfilled' or 'unfulfilled'.

If anyone, PC or NPC, dies with their destiny fulfilled, then they cannot be raised from the dead.

So, the trick seems to be working out when a destiny is fulfilled. We have seen no rules for this so far, so on that we can only speculate.

Here is my speculation - everything from here on is completely unfounded on any official announcements.

It is safe to assume, in my opinion, that many background NPCs will have relatively mundane destinies, which they have already fulfilled: Have children. Provide food for the village. Sell bread to that messenger who went on to warn the kingdom of an attack. Shoot that rabbit that would have otherwise startled the horse the baron's daughter was riding, causing her to fall and suffer a scar that would have prevented her marrying.... well, you get the idea. Not all these destinies are boring, but they do not require surviving to old age to fulfil. Furthermore, I assume that there is no in-game 'DING' that tells a character they have just fulfilled their destiny - that would be silly, in my opinion. So most people, especially those whose lives do not involve high drama and high adventure, are unaware if their destiny is fulfilled.

There might, however, be a ritual you can perform to determine if resurrection is possible. That makes sense to me.

So, how are destinies assigned?

If Destiny is a random force in the game, then rolling on charts makes sense, I guess. If however a sentient force such as the gods choose destinies, then the DM, as the only person at the table who roleplays all the gods and the only one who knows enough about the major plotlines to simulate the gods' precognitive abilities when determining destiny, must make a judgement call, possibly according to some criteria or guidelines in the rules.

From the point of view of gameplay, assigning such destinies randomly could lead to plot problems such as those already discussed. Furthermore, it does not simulate mythic fantasy very well at all.

In most mythical settings suitable for use as inspiration for the standard D&D game, Destiny is not an impersonal force - it is controlled by one or more gods. Who roleplays the Gods? The DM.

So if Destiny is a decision made at each mortal's birth by the gods, then since DM plays the gods, the DM determines which major NPCs have unfulfilled destinies.

This all souinds great, until you remember one designer's comment that characters of level 1-10 tend to stay dead - if they die you roll up a new character.

So either a destiny can change during someone's lifetime ("Bulberan made a decision that would change the course of his destiny - forever!") or else there is some metagaming built into the rules along the lines of only PCs who survive to higher levels are proven to have noteworthy destinies.

As I hope this meandering tangle of rampant speculation illustrates, I think it's far too soon to be jumping to conclusions about how simulationist or gamist the actual rules are. We just don't know enough yet, and it's clearly going to be strongly influenced by whether 4E assumes a strong connection between the wills of the gods and mortals' destinies.

 

[Will]

Personally, I've always liked the ancient concept of Fates being above gods, and weaving Destiny.

The idea that some schmuck adventurer is favored by Fates and can be resurrected, while the Holy Queen, your sister and benevolent leader of thousands, slips in a bathtub and breaks her neck is Destined to die and can't be resurrected...

That sucks, that's horrible, and that's exactly the kind of cursing the heavens I'd LIKE in a game.

And, hell, eventually maybe when the Fates decide someone you care about is destined to die... you go have a chat about that.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

I sooooo, want to see a Warlock pact dealing with the Fates, I am tempted to alter one if I can to fit that concept, maybe the Stars one, given that Stars are related to Fate.

 

[pukunui]

This all souinds great, until you remember one designer's comment that characters of level 1-10 tend to stay dead - if they die you roll up a new character.

To a certain extent, I don't have a problem with this. If you think of PCs as having mana in the original Maori sense of the word (that is to say, mystical/spiritual power and prestige), then the more powerful they become (eg. the higher the level they attain), the more mana they get and the more likely it is they will be "noticed" by whoever/whatever it is that decides whether or not they have fulfilled their destiny and can be brought back from the dead. This would help explain why lower level characters are more likely to stay dead than higher level ones.

On the other hand, we know that souls hang around in the Shadowfell for a while before passing into the deities' dominions or into the Great Beyond ... this opens up heaps of possibilities for low-level characters (or even higher-level ones) to go into the Shadowfell to try and rescue a fallen comrade. There may be something they can do to bring back a Heroic-level character. Pure speculation, though.

Also, I'm guessing that the first adventure, Keep on the Shadowfell, will have something to do with the PCs going into the Shadowfell to rescue/talk to a dead person.

 

[Irda Ranger]

That sucks, that's horrible, and that's exactly the kind of cursing the heavens I'd LIKE in a game.

That's equal parts high drama (good!) and the DM deciding to screw with your character (bad!). I think the second one would get just as tired as any other DM fiat excuse after the fourth time or so.

And, hell, eventually maybe when the Fates decide someone you care about is destined to die... you go have a chat about that.

Now this I like.

PC: Yo! Zeus! I've got a bone to pick with you!
Zeus: <Lightning-bolt-to-the-face!>
PC: laughter
Zeus: Uh oh.

 

[hong]

If it wasn't someone's destiny to get eaten by a troll, how did it happen? This is one problem with this approach. Just what is destiny and just how much control does it have over events?

Destiny is something established after the fact, kind of like in the real world. Did you want to be raised? If so, then you have a destiny. Does the DM want that NPC to be raised? If so, then they have a destiny.

"Destiny" does not have to mean anything specific, like getting to 20th level and killing the grand foozle (or being killed by the grand foozle), unless you want it to. There will no doubt be some campaigns where such prophecies are interwoven into the plotline. There will also be others where they aren't.

 

[robertliguori]

Wait a minute. The way I read your posting, you basically agree with me in every way regarding raising people by making a dangerous voyage to the underworld, in contrast to the standart D&D-way of using dumb "Raise Dead"-spells and other stuff like "Ressurection".

Either I can't read right, or you disagree with me on something I can't really fathom.

I will sum up: the journey to the underworld should exist as a powerful mythic journey, a dark echo of every dungeon delve into the unknown, with ultimate risk and ultimate reward, but it should also be a journey into a real place, with actual, constant rules. I want a system where you can represent Hades, god of the dead as utterly implacable at ninth level, able to be influenced with extreme skill and luck at nineteenth, and able to be beaten up and his stuff taken at twenty-ninth. I want my mythic components built out of set-in-stone, understandable rules, and I want there to be either upper limits on how much the myth can work, or alternately, I want recognizable reality and expectations to be thrown out the window when they encounter the trump mythic reality. It's great to have dragons that represent the destructive elements of human greed and who can be overcome through their lust for treasure, but it's also important to remember that no matter how much of the human condition they model, they are creatures who you can beat with an axe until dead (and then steal their eggs and raise their young in slavery).

Heh, we are going to have to agree to disagree, because I think the above is an example of great storytelling and a way to add drama to the game.

The "hero who can save the world but lives with the shame of being unable to save his sister" is a great thing to roleplay.

BTW, if you don´t believe me, read Rich Burlew´s excellent "Order of the Stick" webcomic, it once featured a similarly dramatic event, regarding a failed Raise Dead spell.

I am familiar with OoTS, and the event you mention. I think it shows perfectly why the old rule works fine. (Note: Spoilers for old OotS ahead. Go read it. Now. Seriously. There is nothing in this thread more important than reading OotS if you haven't.

In the conclusion of the Azure City plotline, we see two important characters die; Lord Shojo, and Roy. An attempt is made to resurrect Lord Shojo; however, the attempt fails. We never hear from him directly, but we do hear a logical explanation from Belkar; Lord Shojo is in Chaotic (mostly) Good Heaven, and has no particular desire to return only to be imprisoned for his crimes and shortly thereafter die of old age. One could say that Lord Shojo, with his nonheroic character levels and negative Con modifier, was obviously a minion and had no destiny, and managed to rule Azure City so well by accident...or one could take Lord Shojo as a demonstration that heroism is not about having +5 to attack versus the city guards, but about not having those bonuses, and facing challenges anyway.

In an interesting parallel to this discussion, Roy's death takes place under exactly the conditions we now discuss; namely, Roy was under a familial blood oath to not find rest inside the gates of paradise. However, the powers of Law and Good decide that this is a stupid-ass rule, and admit him anyway. When Roy does eventually leave Heaven to try his best to aid his companions back in the mortal realm, it is not because the universe encouraged this choice; it's because Roy chose it.

If the rules of the universe are that characters with a destiny to fulfill can come back from the dead, then that is the expectation, because that is what most characters would choose. The drama from both Shojo's failure to return and Roy's sojurn to the mortal realms as a spirit come from the fact that either reaction was possible, but the outcome depended on the choice of the person.

Ooh, I like it. Basically, like how Voldomort avoided death - but at a cost that makes it impossible for PCs to really emulate.

"You can come back, but you won't come back the same, or alone. It goes without saying that having spent time in the Raven Queen's Lands, you will never be the same. But far worse, when you crossed over, something came along for the ride."

Good, plot oozy goodness.

*****

As for the thread, going forward I entrust my votes to Robert Liguori to use at his discretion. Good show, sir!

I'm going to chime in and declare a flat distate for such inherent mechanisms. The Raven Lands are an actual place, where the PCs can go, ruled over by an NPC, whom the PCs can avoid, diplomize, or stabify. Why? Because one day long ago, you chose to set out and go adventuring, and have chosen to continue every day since. You have chosen to fight, and been able to win, battle after battle after battle, and have now reached the point where when your own personal Death incarnates and tries to take you, you can have one of your buddies cast Death Ward and then murder your Death at your leisure. You can exceed playing out the myths of Arachnae and Orpheus and start playing out the Titanomachy, with your party cast as the newly-ascendant gods.

I think there is room for both a HoH-esque resurrection ritual with side effects and "Spend a fraction of your net worth (more money than a commoner can easily imaging existing in one place) and undo the nature of mortality as a standard action." in the same universe.

Gods as characters, with the abilities and limitations of characters, is a trope that I like in my D&D. If it makes sense for the god of the dead to be able to choose to release someone's soul, then it should be possible for your character to get into a position to make a similar choice.

 

[hong]

It doesn't. All it does is change he base assumption from "anybody can get raised unless there's a good reason not to" to "no-one can get raised unless there's a good reason they can".

Depending on your definition of "good reason", this could make no difference at all.

I'm reminded of how 3E changed wizards "memorising" spells to "preparing" them.